Basically, we divide rollplayers into Attila, Rommel, and Caesar, and we divide roleplayers into Shakespeare, Magellan, and Knuckles. (We have better terms, but that’s the way I remember ‘em.) You can check out the relevant sections of our rulebooks for the whole discussion.
Taken from this article (second verse of the rule of three)
These terms intrigue me. Anyone seen them before?
I've never heard these terms before, although the context seems similar to the player stereotypes found in the Gamemastery Guide:
.
.
.
.
- Antagonist
- Continuity Expert
- Diva
- Entrepreneur
- Flake
- Glass Jaw
- Loner
- Lump
- Multitask Master
- One-Trick Pony
- Power Gamer
- Rules Lawyer
- Tagalong
- Thespian
It would be interesting to see more about what those definitions mean. Perhaps some 4E players could shed some light on the matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get all of WotC's categories except Knuckles, what does that mean?
Well you see, unlike Sonic he don't chuckle. He'd rather flex his muscles.
All I've got to say is that I find it hard to take someone seriously when they can say 'rollplayer' with a straight face.
The distinction really doesn't come across except in text
I think these divisions tend to be more harmful than helpful.
I think these divisions tend to be more harmful than helpful.
I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging that there are several archetypes of players. Archetypes can work when you are not trying to divide, but to narrow down interests and/or aptitudes.
They seem smart enough at WotC to acknowledge that an individual can possess more than one of these archetypes, but I'm curious as to what these archetypes are, and in what book(s) they have been elaborated.
'findel
To be more precise, the division of rollplayer and roleplayer into separate categories is harmful. It's a small-minded but dreadfully common perception that you can't do both at once.
I get all of WotC's categories except Knuckles, what does that mean?
It's the dumb brute or thug character type.
To be more precise, the division of rollplayer and roleplayer into separate categories is harmful. It's a small-minded but dreadfully common perception that you can't do both at once.
I'm pretty sure Rich Baker is explicitly saying that you absolutely can do both at once, and that these stereotypes are just that: stereotypes. They use them to make sure they have all of their bases covered when designing.
It might be more useful to think of each stereotype not as an individual person, but as different "pleasure centers" in the brains of each player.
It might be more useful to think of each stereotype not as an individual person, but as different "pleasure centers" in the brains of each player.
I agree with the above, although I generally take offense when someone is 'categorizing' me in one of these stereotypes. But there is wisdom in the acknowledgement that not all players are interested in the same things and yet can take interest in the same game. As long as these archetypes don't turn into stereotypes, I'm all for it.
As for rollplaying vs roleplaying, I wish these distinctions would disappear and in that light agree with Umbral Reaver (same with optimisation vs rollplay). If the terms are there as an acknowledgement that a RPG possesses both a theatrical aspect and a mechanical/tactical aspect (which I think was the intention in Mr. Baker's in his Ro3 article); then I beleive that we're due for another set of labels that doesn't come with the baggage that roleplay and rollplay have. I don't have any suggestions to offer first hand however...
'findel
I get all of WotC's categories except Knuckles, what does that mean?
My guess is that it's someone who enjoys the roleplay part of playing reckless, aggressive characters. They may not be optimizers, but they're the kind of character who'd start a barfight because "that's what my character would do." ()
Holy cow, I now DESPERATELY want to GM a session or two with a party made up of exactly those historical figures (plus Knuckles).Basically, we divide rollplayers into Attila, Rommel, and Caesar, and we divide roleplayers into Shakespeare, Magellan, and Knuckles.
Knuckles is a historical figure more relevant to my life than any of the others listed.
|
To be more precise, the division of rollplayer and roleplayer into separate categories is harmful. It's a small-minded but dreadfully common perception that you can't do both at once.
I have to call out Rule #1 on this -- Because every group is different, what works or doesn't work for one group, may not be true of others. Some Players ONLY want to roll, some gamers etc., etc.
As a DM, knowing whether one of my Players enjoys the game as a "rollplayer" or "roleplayer" helps me balance my session preparations. If I've got a group that loves talking through puzzles and discussing strategy on how best to kick in the door, kill the orc and steal the pie, with one player who hates talking about how to kick in the frickin' door, it helps for me to be aware of that -- to design stuff where even the "odd Player out" gets his due -- it's all good.
When these stereotypes were first mass printed in Robin Laws' 3.5 DMG 2, they were a big revelation and help to many DMs.
NOT because we're trying to shoehorn or stereotype our Players but because, with a generic framework to look at, we can better design our Campaigns and game elements.
I get all of WotC's categories except Knuckles, what does that mean?My guess is that it's someone who enjoys the roleplay part of playing reckless, aggressive characters. They may not be optimizers, but they're the kind of character who'd start a barfight because "that's what my character would do." ()
Robin Laws guide suggests Thespian, Explorer, and Specialist, which I think correspond to Shakespeare, Magellan, Knuckles. The Specialist being someone who always plays the same type of character.
With Tactician, Slayer, and another I can't remember, and the last being a Casual player.
This is interesting.
And, of course, there are the reflexive warners and decriers.
A player is almost always a mix of most of the categories but that doesn't matter. These categories are helpful to make sure that a players different needs are satisfied by the game (such as rolling the dice, playing the role, making the plan, saving the day...) and are not there to sort players into these categories.
I would assume a DM runs a game in a fashion similar on how he or she would participate as a player. Although, I must admit in my early years of gaming, I was prone to jump from time to time.
I've seen plenty of threads about GM archetypes as well. I recall one from just a couple weeks ago that was based around 'merit badges' keyed to various GMing styles.
BTW, is that supposed to be an all-inclusive list Cibet? It doesn't seem like there are any GOOD GMs by those standards if it is. ;)
In all seriousness though, I find that a healthy bit of self-examination/introspection on expectations and preferences is a HEALTHY thing in terms of group enjoyment — that goes for players and GMs. Acknowledging that such differences exist and helping others to recognize common preferences in an unbiased fashion can actually be useful. There is no requirement that a stereotype MUST be derogatory, although the ones mentioned 3 posts prior all seem to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine WotC uses such extreme stereotypes for the same reason they use them for their Magic: the Gathering card game; to ensure that they create a sufficient amount of content to satisfy all of those types. I don't believe they think any player fits squarely into any of those stereotypes. Most players would exhibit traits from several of them.
I imagine WotC uses such extreme stereotypes for the same reason they use them for their Magic: the Gathering card game; to ensure that they create a sufficient amount of content to satisfy all of those types. I don't believe they think any player fits squarely into any of those stereotypes. Most players would exhibit traits from several of them.
Ding ding ding.
At least as presented in that article, the purpose of the stereotypes was to find six major "desires" for different products. Magellan loves setting related fluff and exploring worlds in of themselves, Ceasar loves ripping the rules apart to find how they combine.
The basic goal of these stereotypes is to make content that ideally pleases as many of them as possible They aren't used to insult any of the stereotypes (In fact they all sound kinda badass except maybe "knuckles"), or to stereotype actual people; they're meant to examine the different types of material that players enjoy and discern how to please as many of them as possible all at once. So they wouldn't expect you to go straight up "I am a MAGELLAN" or "I am a KNUCKLES!" or "I am a CEASAR!" (well maybe you would do that last one); what they do expect is for you to think "What I really look for most of all in the items I buy is fluff I can apply/see in settings" or "What I really want is some more crunch that's really awesome for my fighter!"
At least as presented in that article, the purpose of the stereotypes was to find six major "desires" for different products. Magellan loves setting related fluff and exploring worlds in of themselves, Ceasar loves ripping the rules apart to find how they combine.
emphasis mine
The way they are presented in the article, they still represent six archetypical elements to a person's approach to RP. There are not stereotypes yet, unless you use one of these definition to make a simplistic representation a an individual player. That make a big difference for me, because stereotyping quickly leads to lack of respect (on individual level) unlike the acknowledgement of gaming archetypes (although this in turn can lead to stereotyping).
As Cirno said, these are labels on the different approaches and interests that most players have toward roleplaying. One could be just as Magellan as he is Ceasar, and another can be more Knuckle than Shakespeare but still emphasize on these two aspects. Stereotyping doesn't allow that.
Whether these terms are over-simplified and do not justly represent the different elements of gameplay is another question (mostly the one I hoped would be debated here).